Sony Japan Leaks Prices for the F5/F55 Cameras, 4K Recorder, and Other Accessories

Either someone has made a mistake at Sony or they are planning on announcing prices soon, but a Sony Japan site has listed a press release showing prices for not only the F5 and F55 cameras, but also the AXS-R5 4K recorder and some of the other accessories. While these are currently listed in Japanese Yen, doing a rough conversion can yield us pretty close to where we might be seeing these actually retail for. I had already speculated based on a number of different sources what the prices might be, but this is the first time we've gotten a real source from Sony themselves. Click through to check out all of the listed prices.

Here is what we know so far, with prices including and excluding Japanese tax (I used Google for the conversions):

Before you take these as fact, we should first realize that not only are these just MSRPs, and not the final price, but that they are rough conversions, and often the prices in Japan are slightly higher than they are in America, anywhere from 5%-15%. What was interesting to me, however, and it's the reason I listed the camera prices with tax first, is that the prices were only rounded to the nearest dollar, and they were almost perfect conversions.

My previous speculation on the price for the F55 is likely going to be off. Even if the price doesn't change in the conversion, around $34-$36K is far cheaper than the $50K number I had seen thrown around. Now looking at these numbers, I think we do have a better sense of where they will be priced. The key thing to look at with the two cameras is not necessarily the price, but the percentage difference between the two. Many resellers had been listing the F5 and F55 at only $5,000 or so apart, and if you're in the market for a camera, it would be a no brainer to find the extra $5K and get the F55 -- since it is a far superior camera. So if you just take percentages, the F5 is about 60% of the cost of the F55. I would think it's going to stay this way even when it's released here.

I actually am leaning towards the F5 still being around $18-$19K and now I think the F55 will actually be right around $30K, maybe a little more or a little less. I think if you look at Sony's pricing, they will want to keep the F5 just far enough away from the F3 (which they will still be selling), and the F55 can't be too close in price or it's going to defeat the purpose of having two camera models in the first place. So if you look at the prices without recorders, the F55 is roughly half the cost of the F65, and the F5 is roughly half the cost of the F55. The FS700 would also be roughly half the cost of the F5. That's certainly intentional on Sony's part, and it fits into their pricing scheme better than some of the initial price numbers I've seen which had the F5 and the F55 at around $20K and $25K respectively.

Of course, none of this could be right, but it is coming from a Sony press release on a Sony site. It also included the clearest explanation of what framerates the cameras were capable of, much better than I've seen so far from Sony:

So, if you're looking at those framerates on specs alone, the EPIC has the F55 beat at 4K (150fps to 60fps) and the F5 has the SCARLET beat at 4K (60fps to 24fps). Specs aren't the only comparison, but when you look at those numbers alone, and then consider you have to also add in the ~$5,000 R5 recorder to do any RAW at all, the EPIC certainly looks like the best bang for the buck at under $20K if you want a RAW camera (though the EPIC would need another $6,000 and the Dragon sensor to compete with these cameras in lower light).

For the FS700 owners out there, it's going to cost at least $7,000 to get 4K RAW up and running using Sony's hardware. Since the firmware update from Sony will allow 4K from the 3G-SDI, and based on the picture below, it doesn't seem like you would have to use anything from Sony to actually record the signal (from ProNews via Cinescopophilia):

Here is our first good shot of the HXR-IFR5 adapter that will allow other modules to be attached to the FS700 (as I've pointed out before, it's not a recorder by itself, just a module adapter):

The adapter and the firmware update will not be out until the Spring at the earliest, but for many FS700 owners, having to pay double just to get RAW may not be feasible. We may actually get the final US prices when the cameras are "introduced" in full later this month, so you'll have to stay tuned to find out.

What do you guys think? Are these prices where you were expecting? Does this make the offerings from RED more appealing, even if those cameras do not have compressed framerates and ND filters? How about FS700 owners, would you pay $7,000 for Sony's solution, or might you look elsewhere -- or even not at all? Let us know what you think below.

Your Comment

Comment *

Leave this field blank

58 Comments

So you're looking at around $50k to get the F55 up and running with a base kit (battery + charger + viewfinder) and capable of RAW?
For that kind of money you get the Epic Pro package from RED (http://www.red.com/store/products/epic-x-pro-bundle).
It seems to me that they are targeting Alexa with those prices.
Enabling the 4k in the FS700 is pretty interesting though - though their raw recorder is quite bulky and aesthetically unpleasant in that configuration. If the FS700 ends up being capable of recording at high frame rates at 4k then it might end up being an unexpected threat to RED's offerings.
Also, if the price difference between the two models remain the same, I feel that there isn't much differentiation between the two cameras to justify a gap that wide.

It will be max 30fps at 12-bit 4K. You can do the math for whatever is capable from 3G-HD-SDI, which is 2.970 Gbs, or 371.25 Megabytes per second. 30fps actually comes right up to the limit, coming in at 379.68 Megabytes per second. So it may only be capable of 24/25fps max at 12-bit.

Now for the other bitrates, I'm not sure what's capable based on a firmware update, but even at 8-bit, the data rate would be 506.25 Megabytes per second at 60fps. So I'm highly doubting you'll be able to get high frame rates from the FS700. Of course, we don't know yet, but based on the math above it will likely only be 30fps maximum. That's the advantage to a recorder custom built, it's not limited by the bandwidth of an SDI interface.

The C500 has two 3G-HD-SDI outputs which you must use simultaneously to get the full output. It's also only doing it at 10-bit. So your data rate at 60fps and 10-bit is 632 Megabytes per second, well within the spec for absolute max data rate of two 3G-HD-SDIs, which would be about 742 Megabytes per second.

If I remember correctly the FS700 records the 10 seconds or whatever of high speed material uncompressed to an internal buffer first and then play it out to the memory card at your normal frame rate, compressed. So if the buffer can handle those seconds of higher frame rate in 4K, maybe it can play it out to the recorder in the same way, but in raw. Just speculating...

Yes, that's true, it does 8 seconds at full resolution at 240fps. That's a data rate of 474 Megabytes per second (since it's 8-bit), which means the buffer is only about 4GB. The issue is that I don't believe there is any way to take the 4K internally at full resolution. Even if you could, you're still limited by the fact that you would need at least 506 Megabytes per second to do even 60fps at 8-bit, let alone anything higher. I think the 4K RAW solution is interesting, but I just don't see how mathematically there is any way they will do high frame rates on the FS700.

Correct, I'm not saying that, what I was saying is that they still couldn't do what they are doing with one 3G-SDI. If my data rate numbers are wrong, what are the correct ones and what is the equation? I would like to get it right, but there is a reason Canon is using two of them on a brand new camera in order to get the full 4K output.

I went the Canon even in Union Square (NYC) last night, and I believe he said you don't need both 3gsdi connections to get 4k raw. Their raw is split up on 4 channels R, Gr, Gb, B, sent into an RGBA pipeline where one of the G signals is sent on the Alpha channel. So you have 4 HD/2k signals pre-debayering which have been processed in camera to 10 bits with Canon Log applied. Since RGBA is an industry approved standard your 3rd party (and much cheaper) external recorder can record that signal into just about any container it wants, and then you post process begins with their software that reassembles that signal into the bayer pattern for debayering in post. And I believe he said they went with the 10 bit instead of the 12 bit to get it through the pipeline. As I understood it, (and it appears I have thrown out the literature they provided, so I can't check myself) but they have 2x 3gsdi ports to give you options on what you do with the output. And for the 120 fps you are essentially getting a reconstructed interlaced image. I don't remember seeing any of the c500s there connected to the Gemini or Codex recorders with more than one 3gsdi. But again, my memory could be failing me.

but what about the xavc? 10 bit 422 4K at 30fps for 300Mbps or 37.5MB/s. Couldn't you theoretically have up to 300fps from a bandwidth perspective? I guess they would have to release it in a firmware upgrade for the fs700 though.

For me, I am not interested to much in RAW. My biggest want would be a compressed RAW format like REDCODE, or a something like Sony's XAVC in a 4k. GoPro is close to being able to pull out 4k in a $400 cellphone sized video camera that does 45mbps. I really believe the flood gates are about to open on price and technology very soon, and then Sony, Canon, and Panasonic will have no choice but to come down in price 3 or 4 fold, so until then, buying a $35,000 video camera seems a little to risky for me, and my needs.

I think RAW is the best thing in the world for any low budget filmmaking. Have you ever shot RAW? It's so nice having control of the image.

I got to know RAW from stills, and now I've downloaded a bunch of old red footage to begin playing with it and for the first time I've actually been able to do in motion picture footage what I've been able to do with stills for...10 years or something.

In any sort of low budget filmmaking or documentary filmmaking, I'd say it's more important than with professional big budget stuff b/c they have the lights and you don't.

Doubling the price for the FS700 to get RAW is pretty hefty...particularly for a camera that I didn't like in the first place. I shot with it a week...the buttons are maddening...you can't operate by tactile feel, and the click wheel is annoying, as well as the buffering for the slowmo.

If a fully priced out firmware/adapter/recorder/media package stays under 7k we're talking about something pretty interesting. Much more versatile than other options in the price range and real modularity.

If the RAW 4k image from an FS700 is up to scratch, what advantage would the Scarlet possess?

The fact that its onboard is one thing. A huge thing. It's really irritating shooting these days...you have to plug so much stuff into everything, and then find more power ports or splitters to power everything. It's just a mess of wires. We all put up with it with D-SLR's b/c we were getting a significantly better image for the price range...but now that we're in a post-DSL world, we should've gone back to something with everything more or less built in.

even if the recorder is $5000 you will have to pay $2000 for the adapter plus $8000 for the camera. You will still need a lens adapter because I doubt people are using e-mount, and you still havent addressed the cost of memory cards. You could get a decently set up scarlet for that price (15,000)

The FS700 looks like its going to be a great bang for the buck. The biggest advantage its going to offer over the Scarlet is an internal codec that is efficient when you don't need RAW. I personally think its being priced just right. I also keep hearing rumors about the AJA Ki Pro Quad being compatible. Also, Sony has officially announced that the FS700 will be capable of 60 fps in 4k RAW. At least that's what I took from the following article. That's pretty amazing if it stays true.http://www.scribd.com/doc/111584721/4K-Raw-Recording-Interface-Solution-...

Those lenses seem weird to me. I get Sony making/selling their own lenses on cheap cameras, but for pro priced cameras, most pro shooters are gonna go with the Arri/Cooke/Zeiss/Panavision/Angenieux lenses they've always used.

It's like the Red lenses...they seem great (except the flange that keeps them from being used on many other cameras), but overall, most DP's stick with what they always stick with, and budget people are gonna stick with Canon/Nikon D-SLR lenses with adaptors.

I'm looking forward to seeing some footage. There's a video look to the FS700 that I'm not a big fan of, though I know some people are making some great looking stuff on it... others... very videoy... Not so good for shorts. I think this could be more appropriate for me than an epic, raw for shorts etc and compressed internal 10 bit 4K and 1080p for corporate/commercial stuff.

To all who are saying, I'm just going to get any epic, do you have no need for HD, because there is no HD on RED cameras. Theres price and then there is practicality. For web output shooting 2k footage subsampled from a 4k sensor in what ever flavor you want onboard from 50-440 mbps is practical. This is the first camera under 20k to offer 4:4:4 onboard in an SR codec. The data rate for the F5 sony 2k frame has the same data rate as compressed RED 4k frame. They are putting the same amount of information into a smaller frame. Not to mention dynamic range. 14 stops!!!!! did you guys forget, and the sony has an even distribution of stops RED doesn't. For people who haven't shot on RED with the best settings you can only get 4.5 stops of dynamic range in the highlights. A GH2 can get around 3 and Alexa can get around 6.5. The sony distributes dynamic range similar to the Alexa so you'll get at least 1.5 stops more retention than a red for shooting high contrast, and if you want to shoot RED outside know that you'll need a mattebox and IRDN HOT MIRRORS which are not cheap.

The only thing that can hold the sony back is color science, fs700 color science is for consumers, they oversaturate blues and greens so people get over saturated skies and grass, but if you're shooting for cinema everything is relatively low saturation. The f3 also has a saturated color science, that gives it a tv look rather than cinema. If there is no improvement in color science from the f3, that would be the only thing that Red has on the F5, f55 is superior to RED and F65 is another league.

The $330 Blackmagic Hyperdeck 2 can record Epic's 1080p output from the HD-SDI or HDMI to ProRes, DNxHD or uncompressed.

The dynamic range on Red cameras is distributed based on the ISO...higher ISOs give you more stops in the highlights, and lower ISOs give you more stops in the shadows. I'm not sure how the Sony's work, but I know the Alexa is just like the Red cameras in that higher ISOs give you more DR in highlights and lower ISO give more DR in shadows.

I'm pretty sure hyper deck shuttle doesn't do prores and it needs power. Plus there is no indication when the ssd is full, lastly the hdsdi flags only trigger when you record and stop once already, plus it doesn't receive file name meta data so you'll have to sync via timecode, just make sure flags are triggering, the shuttle is to risky for me, it requires too much attention.

And about ISO DR, even if you shift the DR to the highlights all the way with ISO on red, you'll get 4.5 stops, even in the most ideal settings the camera still favors darks. I said Sony is more similar to alexa because on those cams, the native ISO distributes the dynamic range more evenly. Red native ISO is 800 and you get 4.5 up and 7 down, Not very even. It depends on your shooting style, if you like under exposed dark colors red is great, high contrast, Sony will be better

The Hyperdeck Shuttle 2 definitely does ProRes with the latest firmware. And it has an internal battery.

I don't know where you got your information about DR distribution, but it's completely wrong. The Alexa works just like the Red...both cameras always have the same DR and sensitivity, changing the ISO just changes the curve that's applied to the sensor data. As a result exposing for a high ISO is the same thing as underexposing at a lower ISO, which uses more of the DR for highlights.

What you're describing sounds more like how a camera with analog gain would work (like a DSLR).

And just to be clear, the F5 and F55 look like very good cameras, and the toughest competition Red has ever faced. There are many good reasons to choose the Sony's, there's no need to use false reasons.

Internal battery lasts an hour, then what do you do? And what about the other issues? Atomos Samarui is a much better solution if you want to be safe, and the pix 240 is as foolproof as it gets.

I don't really see where you are disagreeing with me, Of course high ISO is just under exposing the sensor. Do you disagree that at native ISO is 800 and that the dynamic range distribution is 4.5 above middle grey and 7 under for RED cameras?

All I'm saying is that even when you are underexposing the sensor at 800 ISO, which at least on the scarlet is the max iso if you want a clean signal, you don't get as much dynamic range in the highlights as a sony or Alexa regularly exposed at middle grey. When you expose below middle grey for highlight retention with the intention of restoring middle grey in post, then you are killing the dynamic range in the darks, Lets say you shoot you shoot a scene at 800 iso and you have a 5 stop difference between you brightest highlight and middle grey, if you underexpose by a stop to retain highlights and adjust in post a stop up, you will retain that highlight information but you will lose one stop of information in the darks bringing your total DR down to 11.5 stops and the noise floor up. You be using a potion of your RAW room to normalize exposure before you even get to your grade. This is not necessary for Sony and Alexa, they have enough dynamic range where you don't even have to underexpose, you'll get the full 14 stops in the same situation instead of killing dynamic range to keep you're highlights from clipping and ending up with 11.5 stops. While you can get a great looking image underexposing with RED and adding noise reduction. Having a wider DR with more even distribution makes those underexposing practices unnecessary for high contrast shots. Maybe its just how I like to do things personally, but I would rather not have to underexpose to expose for middle grey without clipping highlights. Thats the main reason I'm switching from RED to Sony.

Well I won't quibble about details regarding recorders...I don't deny that getting 1080p is easier on the Sony's, just that it's impossible on the Red's.

As far as DR...your numbers sound like those of the original Red One, the new sensor has more DR. I recall ProVideo Coalition compared Epic and Alexa on the same DR chart, and the Epic was about 13 stops and the Alexa was about 14 stops. So yeah the Alexa has a little more information in the highlights, but it still trades off DR based on the ISO exactly like the Red's do. I don't know how the new Sony's will work. Exposing to a high ISO on Alexa increases highlight DR and reduces shadow DR. I believe the Alexa's display even has a little chart telling you how the DR is being split.

Numbers are from my Scarlet. At Native ISOs the Alexa has 2 stops extra highlight retention over any Red camera, thats 400%, thats not a little bit. Peter Jackson himself could not convince me that Red cameras have more than 4.5 stops of dynamic range in the highlights at Native ISO. Graeme from Red has even confirmed it. ALL three cameras act the same way with respect to DR shifts in ISO changes, I never disputed that, what I've been trying to tell you is that RED Native ISO is still very skewed in DR distribution towards the darks. Native ISO is supposed to be even. Alexa is even, Sony is even on the F3 so chances are it will be on the F5. Thats how Sony and Alexa are different than RED.

Technically native Red ISO is 320, even on the MX sensor. People use 800 because of how it distributes the DR. If you want even distribution, expose for it. If the Alexa has two more stops of highlights than Red at 800 ISO, that just means the Red is 1 stop more sensitive if the total DR difference between them is 1 stop.

As for your numbers, what chart are you using? Are you looking at the results in RedLogFilm so you can see the whole range without compressing the highlights and shadows?

I have never seen problems with highlights in the Red footage I've been given to edit. When you have as much DR as these cameras do, the differences are pretty minimal.

I use a Red Cambook, Do you believe that the MX sensor of an EPIC is capable of more than 4.5 stops in the highlights over your grey point?

I think you're partially acknowledging what I'm saying.? When you say that RED has one more stop of sensitivity, then I assume you mean information in the darks. Like I was trying to explain before, RED cameras shine in producing information in the darks. In high contrast scenarios those 1.5-2 stops make a huge difference. Look at it this way, there is more difference in highlight retention between an Alexa and a Red than a Red and a dslr.

I asked about the chart because it seems the only accurate ones are expensive back lit charts...I think even Red turned to Arri's charts for their tests. As such I'd be more interested in direct comparisons than absolute numbers unless those numbers are coming from a highly accurate test.

Red themselves have said that the only "true" native rating for the sensor is 320. What people choose to rate it at depends on where they want their dynamic range...so if for example 800 ISO isn't producing the desirable highlight DR, you may want to bump up the ISO and throw an ND on and expose to that instead.

I feel like we're *almost* on the same page...I guess I don't understand how this is a problem with DR *distribution* since that's 100% up to the user. I can understand an issue with the overall DR as Red does indeed have less than Alexa and the new Sony's. But the distribution isn't fixed like it is on a DSLR.

Also, the RedGamma's may not be the best curves to use...you might want to try using RedLogFilm and throw various LUTs on and see if you get a better look that way. I personally think the Alexa LUTs look surprisingly good on Red footage.

Personally if I were doing a smaller project that only required HD, and I was shooting it on my 4k camera I would prefer to record that in camera and not have to deal with an external recorder. It just seems like extra unnecessary hassle.

I think it's a terrible hassle. I had a crappy connector on a hyperdeck shuttle 2 and I thought we could get it working well enough, but we'd get drop frames where the connection failed and I was stuck using the AF100 internal codec instead for a whole short film. A total waste. I'd much prefer to stay in camera, and this is one reason I bought one of those battle tested R1MX's.

Not sure what you're basing that comment about the color science and subsequent over-saturation of the F3 on. Maybe in some of the cine gamma settings but, with sLog, you have nothing of the sort. Most cases, the image with sLog log is so desaturated, it looks almost black and white with a slight bit of color added, requiring considerable saturation in post to get it to look normal. Maybe you should actually shoot with one before you make such statements.

Whoa Whoa Whoa, aggressiveness misdirected. I said that Fs700 is over saturated, I never said the f3 is over saturated, I was making a comparison to RED color reproduction. I've shot on the f3 and I'm a big fan of the camera, when you add a 3d Lut or use a standard PP, it is definitely more saturated than Red Color 2 and 3. I just prefer the Red color science to the F3's for cinema applications. I said the F3 has a look for TV, Sony even says the f5 that has the color science of F3 and its meant mostly for TV applications, the f55 with the color science of the f65 is coined for cinema. I'm not saying that f5 can't be used for cinema, it definitely can, I was literally saying that color science for cinema application is the only thing that RED cameras may have on the F5, F5 wins at everything else. Friendly fire.

As a producer, the F55 sounds like a great camera to rent as it will have a similar bang and flexibility of an Alexa and yet be half the rental cost (hopefully). I think these will rent around the same price as the Epic packages and with the higher dynamic range of this camera it seems like a better bet to me. All things equal though, until I see some footage specs only tell me so much.

As an FS700 owner, the 4K interface + recorder + battery has NO appeal to me. It's freaking HUGE and really expensive. I think 4K on the FS700 is going to be a wash unless a smaller, more reasonably priced recorder comes out from a 3rd party.

To me, a better internal codec is something I would gladly pay for and take that over 4K RAW almost any day. The FS700 internal codec is starting to feel really dated especially since cameras like the GH3 and BMC have equal or better internal codecs and cost way less.

Even if it was only shooting HD, the fact that they supposedly eliminated rolling shutter is a gigantic leap for digital motion picture cameras. But the proof is in the pudding, so I have to see it to believe it.

Spending another $ 8,000.00 for a 4K upgrade is unacceptable!!! Although the Nex-FS700 has a more sensitive sensor than the JVC 4K machine, the JVC unit does it all for under $5,000.00!!!!
There is no doubt that 4K is the new standard, but there is also no doubt that cheap, low light, and all in one video cameras are right around the corner. They will probably start appearing as early as late 2013, or early 2014. But the question is, can you wait?
I was really impressed with the Nex-700's promises and the 4K sensor--not so impressed with what they want to charge for the full update!!
It should be a single device that plugs into the 700 directly and cost no more than $2,000.00--minus the fancy cards. I know this is do-able, and I am not impressed with taking an already complicated, clumsy design and adding more clumsy afterthoughts!!!! It will make the 700 a portable nightmare and an awkward tripod fiasco!!!
What ever happened to Sony brilliance and ingenuity! Must they go the way of Canon and make you spend a fortune on the bare necessities?
Steve

Get your FREE copy of the eBook called "astonishingly detailed and useful" by Filmmaker Magazine!
It's 100+ pages on what you need to know to make beautiful, inexpensive movies using a DSLR. Subscribe to receive the free PDF!